Firstly, one of the main factors that has prevented star drivers from winning as many championships as they could, was the issue of reliability. For example, Jim Clark could possibly have been a 4 or 5 times World Champion had he drove cars that were as reliable as they are now, but building reliable cars wasn't really a thing at Colin Chapman's Lotus: "He used to build cars so they needed a complete rebuild after every race, but that was precisely the idea. He'd say they only need to do 250 miles so if they break down after 260 then we're doing it about right. Of course what happened was they very often broke at about 240..." - Peter Warr
Not to ignore the 1950s, yes, the '50s were a chaotic time for Formula 1, but this brings me to my next point: The changes in regulations that occurred throughout Grand Prix history. Changes in the rules often bring about newfound domination for one team. That's good if you happened to be in what would become the dominant team (like what happened with Caracciola, Ascari, Fangio, and Hamilton), but bad if you weren't. What usually happens is, the rules change, a team dominates for a little while, and then everyone else eventually catches up, at which point you get a better diversity of winners. The Cosworth DFV Era was a period of relative stability in the rules, and resulted in many different winners, both constructors and drivers.
I realize Schumacher's dominance came about in a period of relative stability, but again, this was enabled in-part by bulletproof reliability.
The FIA should consider that F1 may need ongoing development for it's own benefit. I say give them 100kg of fuel and tell them that they can use any engine type they want. If someone can somehow make 100kg of fuel last a race distance with a 1 litre V12, that's great. Others might be more sane and make a 1.5L 4 cylinder instead, which is fine. Just to see what they come up with. One team would get it right first, but the other teams would have options, and catch up eventually.
